IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0912
Filed November 13, 2014
MARIO SELVIS BARRERA,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Gregory A. Hulse,
Judge.
Petitioner appeals dismissal of his application for postconviction relief as
time-barred. AFFIRMED.
B. John Burns, Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Defender’s Office,
Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, and Wayne M. Reisetter, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, J.
On October 12, 1995, Mario Barrera pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the
third degree, in violation of Iowa Code 709.4(2)(c)(4) (1995). He was sentenced
to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed ten years, said sentence
suspended. Barrera was subsequently deported from the United States due to
this conviction.
In 2014, Barrera was charged in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa with second illegal reentry. The United States District
Court continued the criminal proceedings to allow Barrera to challenge his 1995
conviction that gave rise to his initial deportation. Thus, in 2014, more than
eighteen years after his conviction for sexual abuse, Barrera filed his application
for postconviction relief, alleging that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to
advise Barrera of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea pursuant to
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). The district court dismissed Barrera’s
application as time barred pursuant to Iowa Code section 822.3 (2013) and
Perez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 2012) (holding that criminal defendant was
required to raise claim regarding failure to advise of immigration consequences
of guilty plea within the three-year limitation period set forth in section 822.3).
On appeal, Barrera concedes his claim is time-barred pursuant to section
822.3 and Perez, but he asks that Perez be reconsidered. “We are not at liberty
to overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.” State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697,
700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990). The district court did not err in dismissing Barrera’s
application for postconviction relief.
3
The judgment of the district court is affirmed without further opinion. See
Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), and (e).
AFFIRMED.